-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How to improve test cricket
- Thread starter Jakester1288
- Start date
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
The most important thing that needs to be done to revitalise the game is to restore some balance between bat and ball. At the moment the game is completely skewed in favour of the former.
For some strange reason everyone who matters seems to have concluded that people come to watch only batsmen, boundaries, sixes, centuries, doubles and triples. This has had a very detrimental impact on all aspects of the game.
As it is the bats are completely unrecognisable from what even we were playing with. At sixty today I can drive with my new bat and get almost as much out of the stroke as I did when I was twenty. For those who play the game at the highest level the difference is amazingly vast.
On top of that the boundaries are shrinking.
Referrals to the third umpire are bringing more 'doubtful benefits' for the batsmen.
Wickets have become dead even in places where they used to be lively. Perth, for example is nothing compared to the fiery top it used to be.
The new ball swings for much shorter time if at all since the lack of emphasis on the side on aspect of the action has dramatically reduced the number of bowlers around the world who can swing late and big.
In the limited overs game, the restriction on how many overs the best bowler/s of a side can bowl has made the batsman face the weaker bowling for more than half the game.
The wide rule (still in ODI's) has ensured that the bowlers bowl just where the batsmen would love them to.
Need to have six players who will be available to bowl has meant that fewer specialist bowlers will be played in the limited overs game.
The importance of the limited overs game and its proliferation has meant that all these habits that the bowlers are 'forced' to pick up from the shorter version become part and parcel of the game for the generation that has been brought up on that diet from their very first 'baby steps' in the game.
The bowling standards are nowhere near what they used to be. This is a fact. This has nothing to do with the "bleatings' of an old foggy. Ask any top cricketer of the seventies or eighties whose opinion you respect and you will get the same answer.
This has actually made the batsmen of today, inspite of the 'great' averages, much lesser players than you may want to think of them. When we criticise some of the older players for not having performed against this or that great bowling attack, we need to look around and see what kind of bowling attacks we have today.
This is not a fault of the players. The bowlers, and the batsmen, of this generation have it in them to be as good as the best of other eras but the system needs to keep monitoring the anomalies that are bound to creep in over time.
A lot can be done to make things better for bowlers. Uncovered pitches is often suggested but that is not the only thing. So much else can be done if the authorities just decided that if bowling standards improved, the batting would have to, and will, rise to learn to counter it and the spectators will get not just a real contest but one of a much higher quality.
slippyslip
U19 12th Man
You've touched on one of the most infuriating ignored issues in cricket. The "boundary" ropes being dragged in 20+ metres so batsmen can hit more "sixes". Its one thing to use them at the MCG or the 'Gabba, another thing to use them at the smaller grounds around the world. Why commentators and writers are silent on this issue puzzles me. It makes the game look like a joke. When I was a kid we sometimes used ropes well inside the fence ... if we were playing on grounds designed for adults.
I remember as a kid watching Malcolm Marshall bowl in the 1984/85 series in Australia and being in awe of him. I remember the battles he had with Kepler Wessels, a guy with one stroke - a great cut shot and a scoring rate of that approaching the negative - fighting for his wicket and just hanging in. I found it exciting.
But people just dont want to watch a bowler bowling extremely well and the batsmen fighting for their lives since these battles result in slow scoring rates. They want to watch 4+ runs an over being scored from the first ball of the first innings on the first day.
Succeeding in batting in test cricket is not about toughing it out against quality bowling. Its about maintaining a high scoring rate against glorified bowling machines without getting out. Theres more in common with riding a motorbike around a race track at top speed to see how long you can go before you crash. Take Bopara and Peterson being out of form and trying to get themselves into form during the 2nd test. The crowd was getting agitated. Sure, they were batting slowly but what was the rush? But the crowd demaned runs or wickets. Nothing else will be tolerated. Even in tests its hit out or get out.
Its also injuries taking a toll on fast bowlers. How many promising fast bowlers have we seen cut down through injury or had their careers shortened?
Brett Schultz, Shane Bond, Iain Bishop, Craig McDermott, Shoaib Akhtar, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones, Bruce Reid, Darren Gough just off the top of my head. Of course fast bowlers are going to get injuries but with the amount of cricket being played it becomes much more noticeable. Decades gone bowlers had more time just not to rest and avoid injury, but to recover from them. So now we have teams with weak bowling attacks because half of their best bowlers are out injured.
Take Australia recently for example. Sure we had McGrath and Warne retire. But we had Brett Lee and Stuart Clark perform strongly in the last 12-18months when those 2 were still in the team. With Clark, Lee and a young Mitchell Johnson Australia still had a good pace attack on paper. Except that Clark and Lee got injured. Suddenly Johnson is shouldering the attack. Too much too young is one of the reasons he has lost form. From that awesome 2006/07 Ashes bowing team we have none playing at the moment though only 2/4 of the bowlers have retired. Guys McGrath at least had a couple of years of McDermott and good ole fat Merv to see him through. Guys like Ambrose and Walsh had the rest of the West Indian greats to guide them through. If Ambrose was having a bad day you still had Marshal to step up.
Rig
Last edited:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
About injuries, its true that there is too much cricket being played but there is also a problem with complete disregard to optimum bowling actions. The number of bowlers who bowl with side on actions is very few today. Most bowl square chested. This is a recipe for disaster. Most bowlers who lasted long as pacers had better actions and most with bad actions lasted for shorter periods. There are exceptions on both sides but they are just that - exceptions.
Secondly, a lot more first class cricket was played, particularly by English cricketers. Here is the number of deliveries bowled by some English pacers over time. Check out who played for longer.
Code:
[B]Details Trueman Hadlee Botham Flintoff Harmison[/B]
FC Career(Yrs) 20 19 19 15 13
Balls(FC) 99701 67518 63547 22470 35410
Balls (one day) 986 16188 22899 9416 6760
Balls (T-20) 525 385
[B]TOTAL 100687 83706 86446 32411 42555[/B]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Balls/year 5034 4406 4550 2161 3273[/COLOR]
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do you have a medical source for this, or is it just a trend you think you've noticed? I've only spoken with a couple of physios on the issue, but they both said side-on actions are generally much more damaging, particularly to the back (notable because, unlike with a lot of fast bowling injuries, once it's ****ed it's ****ed for life).
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
You dont need to ask physios. Ask any bowler pf note and he will tell you.
I can quote twenty of them here if you want. But it really is a waste of time because it honestly doesn't matter
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
... and if you are seriously interested read up on the subject >There are many places but you will have to take the trouble.
I had once written in detail on getting side on. If you are interested go to
this thread
and read the bit on page four.
I had once written in detail on getting side on. If you are interested go to
this thread
and read the bit on page four.
1. better pitches
2. better pitches
3. better pitches
4. possibly a different ball, or new regulations, to aid swing bowling. especially if pitches dont improve.
5. day-night test cricket. I think it matters more than many think. Looking at the sensational ratings in England for the first big night game under the roof at Wimbledon, its hard to see, why it wouldnt be the same for cricket.
6. Four-day tests. Good cricket doesnt need five days even allowing for poor weather. No day five means no profit from a slow pitch. The number of draws must not grow so issues like hours of play, over rates, drainage and floodlights will have to be adressed. But that will only help the game.
7. use weather reports to make-up time before the delays in the same way its now done after delays. If the chance of rain is more than X percent in the afternoon, lunch is dealyed. If the forecasts for day 3 and 4 are very poor, the extra half hour is added from day one.
8. Longer series - but played faster. 5-test series are the greatest but no need for lengthy preparations or gap between games. it does nothing for anyone. Players hate long tours and time is money.The current ashes schedule is ideal.
9. Phase-out dead rubbers. Its antiquated and pointless. Let them still be played but accept that all players needing rest are excused. This would mean even a five match series could quite often be played in a month as the fifth game is often not needed.
10.. part time two division test cricket, offering more context and purpose. A world champion found every other year from five-test series only. A limited window for attractive cross-division series would have to exist.
2. better pitches
3. better pitches
4. possibly a different ball, or new regulations, to aid swing bowling. especially if pitches dont improve.
5. day-night test cricket. I think it matters more than many think. Looking at the sensational ratings in England for the first big night game under the roof at Wimbledon, its hard to see, why it wouldnt be the same for cricket.
6. Four-day tests. Good cricket doesnt need five days even allowing for poor weather. No day five means no profit from a slow pitch. The number of draws must not grow so issues like hours of play, over rates, drainage and floodlights will have to be adressed. But that will only help the game.
7. use weather reports to make-up time before the delays in the same way its now done after delays. If the chance of rain is more than X percent in the afternoon, lunch is dealyed. If the forecasts for day 3 and 4 are very poor, the extra half hour is added from day one.
8. Longer series - but played faster. 5-test series are the greatest but no need for lengthy preparations or gap between games. it does nothing for anyone. Players hate long tours and time is money.The current ashes schedule is ideal.
9. Phase-out dead rubbers. Its antiquated and pointless. Let them still be played but accept that all players needing rest are excused. This would mean even a five match series could quite often be played in a month as the fifth game is often not needed.
10.. part time two division test cricket, offering more context and purpose. A world champion found every other year from five-test series only. A limited window for attractive cross-division series would have to exist.
Pigeon
Banned
I agree with this.
Also the bowlers might have been helped by the fact that they were bowling on uncovered assisting pitches and really did not have to take the extra effort to get wickets. It is also to be noted that 5 days of FC bowling in England FC is not equal to 5 days of bowling in Test cricket is not equal to five days of bowling on flat surfaces like the subcontinent and Australia.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Personally agree that the amount of bowling is a bigger reason for longevity than the actions of the above bowlers. It's generally accepted that front-on bowling actions generate fewer injuries because it puts pressure more on core-strength muscles than joints/lower spine. For every Freddie/Harmison, there's McGrath/Walsh for example.
The above examples aren't the greatest, either. Hadlee and Botham both cut their pace in their mid-20's significantly due to back injuries whereas Harmison and Flintoff can both still breach 150Km/h in their early 30's. If they throttled back and bowled back-of-a-length fast-meds, I'd suggest they'd be injured a lot less too.
You just have to look at Flintoff's latest injury to see that; a meniscus tear in the knee. Nothing to do with wear-and-tear, all about busting a gut trying to bowl quick.
The above examples aren't the greatest, either. Hadlee and Botham both cut their pace in their mid-20's significantly due to back injuries whereas Harmison and Flintoff can both still breach 150Km/h in their early 30's. If they throttled back and bowled back-of-a-length fast-meds, I'd suggest they'd be injured a lot less too.
You just have to look at Flintoff's latest injury to see that; a meniscus tear in the knee. Nothing to do with wear-and-tear, all about busting a gut trying to bowl quick.
Last edited:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
You have two new balls in the first 150 overs. If the first one is buggered, take the second one at 50 overs, but it has to last you the next 100.